Tuesday, March 08, 2016

Couple unhappy after husband received letter addressed to Mr Dick Head

A grandfather was left shocked and angered after a claims company sent him a letter addressed to “Mr Dick Head”.
Alf Skelton, 64, was sent the letter entitled “Last Chance to Claim!” from High Street Claims last weekend, with the company sending forms to say he could claim for missold payment protection insurance (PPI).
To his and his wife Greta’s shock, the letter, which arrived at their home in Grangetown, North Yorkshire, on Saturday morning was addressed to “Mr Dick Head”.
“I just want to warn other people about this because it’s not right at all,” said Mr Skelton.

“After the letter was posted to the house, I thought it was a sick joke, but my wife was quite upset about it.”
The couple, who are parents to Alf, 45, and grandparents to Connor, 21, have since been in touch with the company to complain about the sending of the letter.
High Street Claims said they have apologised to the Skeltons for the letter, which they say was sent with the derogatory heading as the result of an “unforeseeable administration error”.
Mrs Skelton, 65, said: “When the letter first came through the door I didn’t have my glasses on, so couldn’t see the writing on it.
When I read it properly I thought it must be one of our friends perhaps playing a joke on us.

“But I realised it wasn’t and it made me quite angry to be honest. You just don’t expect people to do something like that.
I’m very particular about courtesy and manners and this letter didn’t have any.
We just want to let people know what they are getting into by dealing with these types of companies.”
A spokesman for High Street Claims said: “We do not hold a telephone number for the intended address and we have not made any calls to the occupant of this address or indeed to any recipients of our postal advertising campaign.
We buy data in from various recognised data marketing companies subject to our purchasing agreements, which are very strict as to the sourcing of information, consents and general compliance.

“Unfortunately, it must be the case that in this particular circumstance the screening of data did not pick up the individual name due to the format being split between first name and surname.
As such it must have passed the screening and not been identified as a prohibited word. There was no malicious intent and we adamantly deny any accusation as such.
This is merely an unfortunate and unforeseeable administration error.
In any event we have taken action to add further levels of screening to our already stringent processes with regards to data purchase. We are also taking action to investigate how this scenario took place at first instance.
We have sent a letter of apology to the occupier of the address in question titled “Dear Sirs” as we do not have the individual’s contact name/number.
We strive to maintain the highest levels of compliance as well as customer satisfaction and would object to any implication to the contrary.”